With 16 World Series of Poker Circuit (WSOP-C) rings in his trophy cabinet, Maurice Hawkins is one of the circuit’s biggest winners. The controversial Missouri-born pro has amassed his near-record haul of winner’s rings over 15+ years grinding the tournament circuit, focusing on live events rather than online, putting him second on the all-time winners list behind Ari Engel who recently picked up number 18 (in an online event).
Coming in the same week that Maria Konnikova’s online bracelet win came in for criticism, Hawkins made an appearance on a podcast trailer with fellow WSCOP-C ring-winner Byron Johnson in which the two talked about the status of Circuit rings being watered down and argued that online wins and live wins should not be considered equal.
Hawkins has his share of critics (an online thread about him refusing to pay his backer currently runs to over 200 posts), but as one of the all-time leading ring-winners in WSOP Circuit history, his opinions are worthy of discussion.
‘It used to mean something, now it means nothing’
You can view the clip here; we’ve pulled a few relevant quotes, below.
Maurice Hawkins: “I think that they’ve watered it down to a point where they’re worthless. You have people winning rings where first place is like $4,000, $5,000, $6,000.
“With this whole online thing, you could play a $200 tournament with 60-70 people in it and win a ring - it’s just diluted, and it's making it worse, it doesn’t even mean anything anymore. It used to mean something, now it means nothing.
“The WSOP doesn't care; when I talked to Jack Effel, he tells me, you know, the WSOP is a brand and we’ve got to promote the brand. But by promoting the brand, you're bringing down the value of the ring.”
Byron Johnson: “So you can still promote the brand by not watering down the product, right? So I think - me being a World Series of Poker ring winner - my argument would be that people who win online shouldn't be classified the same as people who win live, because, in my opinion, I think live and online are two different things.”
MH: “You're sitting there in your robe at home, nobody's watching you. We don't know what they're doing - I'm not saying that people online are cheating - but we don't know if they're running programs, we don't know if they have RTA, we don't know if anyone’s ghosting them, we know nothing.
“People online don't win as much as they do live, because online it teaches you to have six screens up with six tournaments, and just flip, flip, flip, flip, flip, until you get a chip lead deep and then you're like, ‘Okay, now I'm gonna play’. So you don't have that stress of your chip equity, you just flip, flip, flip and see what happens.”
BJ: “I think they should look at it like this: during the summer time when you go to the WSOP, you win a bracelet; when you travel around on the circuit, you win a ring; when you decide to stay home…”
MH: “...you win a slipper.”
Both players point out that they are not against online poker, nor celebrating the wins of online players, but rather that they feel there needs to be a point of difference between the way live and online achievements are perceived and rewarded.
BJ: “I'm not saying, like, don't reward the person who won online. I'm not saying that at all, because there's some poker pros that I really like that play online. I'm simply saying, it's not the same thing: you can't give somebody a ring when they haven't done what I did.”
MH: “Some people want to be champions at all costs, it doesn’t matter... You can be a champion. I'm gonna call you a champion regardless of where you’re winning.”
What do you think about the way online and live event wins are rewarded? Do you think things should be changed, or are you happy with the current system?
Let us know your thoughts in the comments below and, as always, keep it civil.
